It is a bit of a complex question, but I will try to be very quick. I think that the intention and practice should be to achieve consent from as many nations as possible, if not all, if that is possible. Many times projects get approved when nations intervene. One of the difficult things we find oftentimes is that industry can choose winners and choose losers. If there are nations that, perhaps, don't support a project, they may or may not get as much attention as those that do. This leads to benefits.
I think Canada and the respective provinces have a big role to play. Ms. Gale mentioned it a bit earlier, but those legislative and regulatory regimes play into that decision-making, first-hand. The shared decision-making model, as it moves forward, becomes increasingly important when it comes to unanimity, as you mentioned, with respect to supporting projects. In that shared decision-making, I think it is very important to understand that there are relationships with proponents, there are relationships with regulators, and there are Crown relationships as well that first nations are navigating all at the same time. They are trying to figure out, in these opportunities, who's going to hold companies accountable and who's going to enforce legislation and regulatory aspects.
These are all part of a complex picture that we continuously navigate when it comes to considering projects in our lands, but that shared decision-making model to achieve consent as we move forward is extremely important. We live it every day, and we see projects where, after the fact, when equity opportunities are presented, those that support the project will get that opportunity to become owners in projects at the expense of some of the other nations that do not get that same opportunity, which is very problematic. It think that is something that's very important for the committee to be mindful of as your discussions move forward.